But, why does the background check amendment — and the other eight amendments that will be offered — need 60 votes rather than a simple majority? The answer is a combination of Senate procedure and the complex politics of guns.

To end debate, on even one amendment, requires 60 votes — a process known as invoking cloture. Rallying 60 Senators to any cause is very difficult in such a polarized body. And even if cloture is invoked on an amendment, there can be up to 30 hours of debate on it. That’s a time consuming process for one amendment – let alone nine, which is what the Senate is considering beginning today.

Given that, another route is to require a 60-vote threshold on the final vote for each individual amendment rather than to end debate on each measure. Instead of drawing the process out over days or weeks, the votes then can be taken in quick succession.

So, why didn’t Reid try to get the unanimous consent agreement to set all amendment votes at a 51-vote threshold?

Because to do that would have opened the bill up to the very likely possibility that amendments favored by gun rights advocates would be added to it.

Hope that answers your question.

I do apologize for not including the WP link earlier. I just assumed that everyone understood what was happening at this point in the legislative process.

I am sure that our discussion has helped others to better understand the inner workings of our Congress.

I think it depends on the context. If you are applying for a firearms permit, it would mean an investigation of your legal and mental qualifications. If you were in jail for, say, carrying a firearm without a permit, a back ground check could mean something very different.

bluetick2.0 wrote:I think it depends on the context. If you are applying for a firearms permit, it would mean an investigation of your legal and mental qualifications. If you were in jail for, say, carrying a firearm without a permit, a back ground check could mean something very different.